MN Star Tribune: Michael Tegeder: Instead of amendment, try Golden Rule

[Jennifer_J]

Minneapolis Star Tribune, MN, January 7, 2006

startribune.com/562/story/168459.html

<<Michael Tegeder:
Instead of amendment, try Golden Rule Our state
once sent a hateful message via its Constitution. There’s no
reason to do so again.
Rev.Michael Tegeder

Over the next weeks Roman Catholics in our state are being asked
by our bishops to engage in a postcard campaign to petition
legislators to
place the issue of a “Constitutional Marriage Amendment” on the
ballot for November 2006. I find this campaign troubling, being
unnecessary and
mean-spirited. As we discern how to respond, I’d like to share
some perspective from our state’s history.>>

startribune.com/562/story/168459.html

 

[Catholic29]

And here is another in need of our prayers. These dissenting priests really seem to be coming out of the woodwork as of late in regard to issues relating to homosexuality, I wonder why that could be?

In any case this Fr. Tegeder has a skewed sense of how and when one is to use the Golden Rule. My Catechism and Bible also teach me to abhor the sin, in this case the active gay lifestyle (sodomy) and same-sex marriage, all precepts incompatible with Scripture and Church tradition.

But praise God for this purification. Even if we do end up with a smaller Church in the end, at least it will be more in line with apostolic teaching.

 

[Cathy_of_Alex]

Tegeder says: "It is ironic for our Catholic bishops to be promoting this amendment as necessary for protecting marriage. A year ago, over the 2004 Christmas weekend, the bishops wanted a pastoral letter disseminated in churches throughout the state that spoke of grave threats to marriage. They mentioned the usual suspects, artificial birth control and divorce, and then added same-sex marriages. If they sincerely believe this, their main battle is with birth control and divorce, which are much graver threats in terms of pervasive societal acceptance. Why then do the bishops only promote a constitutional amendment against gays and lesbians and their families? "

He seems to be implying that the Church’s main battle is only with birth control and divorce? What??!!! and those are the much graver threats then gay marriage.

I would say they are all equally grave threats and I don’t think the Church is saying otherwise. The Church has to pick it’s battles and here the opportunity to stop gay marriage is before it.

If gay marriage is allowed I see a day when the Catholic Church may be forced to perform the marriages. Look around our nation: in some states (New York and Calilfornia come to mind) religious employers must allow birth control and must insure domestic partners-even if it’s contrary to their religious convictions. How long after gay marriage becomes law will it be before a case arises where a gay couple is refused “marriage” in a church and a lawsuit is filed?